We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted to shine light on government activities for public review. Indeed, for our democracy to function effectively, those who govern must be accountable to those they govern. Along those lines, the Supreme Court has held that our citizenry is entitled to know “what the government is up to.” And in the wake of Watergate, the FOIA was given greater enforcement teeth.

In a nutshell, the public can make FOIA requests to the government seeking government records pertaining to all sorts of government affairs. The government is required to produce or make available such government records, unless a narrow exemption applies, such as exempting the production of records that could compromise an ongoing law enforcement investigation, or records that would reveal classified state secrets. But the presumption is that requested government records must be produced.

As we heard about during the most recent presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, when serving as the Secretary of State, engaged in governmental communications while using a private email server. The problem with this is that if FOIA requests are made for government records, those communications housed on a private email server could escape revelation to the public. This could mean that government could operate in secret — undercutting the core purpose of the FOIA and the functioning of an open democracy.

Hillary Clinton admitted that it was a mistake that she used a private email server for some governmental communications. She explained that nothing consequential was kept secret, and she endeavored to produce these email communications. Nevertheless, on the campaign trail, Donald Trump whipped up his base, and there were repeated chants of “lock her up” when referring to the Clinton email debacle.

Does this mean that Donald Trump was not truly serious when accusing Hillary Clinton of criminal conduct regarding her private email server communications? Does this mean that Trump’s people should be prosecuted for private email server government communications, as he strongly suggested should happen to Hillary Clinton? Or does this mean that there should be a pox on the houses of both sides, and we truly have to be concerned about the open running of government, as these lessons seem not to be learned and there appears an ongoing desire to keep some government communications away from public scrutiny?

At this point, one can reasonably suspect that Trump will not continue as strongly to proclaim that Clinton engaged in criminal conduct, as that could boomerang back on his people. One can also guess that there will be further investigation into how Trump’s people handle their government emails — as Hillary was similarly investigated. It remains to be seen what enforcement or prosecutorial action, if any, will be taken in response to Trump administration emails that were communicated via private email servers.

Compare jurisdictions:BYOD: Bring Your Own Device

" The newsfeeds are very useful, easy to read and well written. They allow me to stay current with all the latest news and analysis. The précis give a clear and concise overview of the articles in each email and help me to decide which articles will be of greatest use."